The only thing I can think is if they were to knock the shed end down including the hotel and mega-store and rebuild that stand as 1 level stand like the kop end at Anfield or what was being proposed for the Battersea stadium.

 

Whether or not that would actually increase the stadium capacity by much I don't know and was obviously be an extremely expensive solution. 

The board have made promises about not moving (too far) away from SW6 should they be allowed to buy back from CPO but I think there remains a skepticism which I think is what led to the "no" vote a couple of years back.

 

I think one of the bones of contention was the board promised not to look at sites further afield than 3 miles from the Bridge, but only until 2020. Which immediately begs the question: what happens after that? I want us to progress but I also want us to stay within our natural territory. No White City, Old Oak, East London etc.

I think one of the bones of contention was the board promised not to look at sites further afield than 3 miles from the Bridge, but only until 2020. Which immediately begs the question: what happens after that? I want us to progress but I also want us to stay within our natural territory. No White City, Old Oak, East London etc.

 

I suppose the thinking is there is only so long that we can stay at a 43k stadium whilst all our domestic and European rivals have stadium capacities that are 10k upwards bigger than ours. 

 

Before long there's going to be something like 10 teams in England alone that have bigger stadium capacities than ours and with the pressure that FFP brings, especially in regards to what transfer funds we are allowed to spend how long can the club sit on their hands and wait for the idealistic scenario to present itself? 

 

We always seem up against it with the Torries and the Hammersmith and Fulham council with all things Chelsea and I honestly feel like we are met with a lot more resistance than our domestic rivals are when it comes to expanding our ground. 

 East London etc.

 

I'd be physically sick.

Basically the CPO's having essentially saved the club from going under hold the clubs interests very dear to their hearts and have a very emotional attachment to Stamford Bridge... I think there remains a belief that more can be done to expand Stamford Bridge's current capacity despite the club insisting otherwise. 

How did they save the club?

The CPO was set up to stop property developers getting their hands on SB at any point in the future .They purchased the freehold of SB from Chelsea FC with a loan from and still in the main owed to Chelsea FC. Yes CPO shareholders have purchased shares and still continue to buy them but as for saving the club sorry that's just not the case.

Edited April 14, 201412 yr by terraloon

Would it though?

I mean it's not a huge space in the first place, I don't think that would be a viable option.

To get a 50-60k seater you need a good bit of space and our seating is as close to the pitch as I think it can get already.

 

I think so

 

if you go some feet below ground level, and have it slightly steeper escalating it would definitly work. Im sure it could be done im sure.

Before long there's going to be something like 10 teams in England alone that have bigger stadium capacities than ours and with the pressure that FFP brings, especially in regards to what transfer funds we are allowed to spend how long can the club sit on their hands and wait for the idealistic scenario to present itself? 

 

If it comes to a choice between having a big stadium miles from our heartland and staying at Stamford Bridge, I'd honestly rather stay at the Bridge. A bigger stadium would be nice but not at any cost. Juventus, a big and wealthy club by any measure, now play in a smaller stadium than we do.

I think so

 

if you go some feet below ground level, and have it slightly steeper escalating it would definitly work. Im sure it could be done im sure.

That's not going to happen. Over the years the building regulations have changed in many ways, and one of those changes apparently rules out steeper stands. I read somewhere that under the present building regs the East Stand would not be allowed due to it's steepness ( is that a word ?! )

 

The main stumbling block to increasing capacity at Stamford Bridge remains the same. It is a small plot hemmed in on 3 sides, and this compounds the fact the only exit points all lead on to the Fulham Road. There are strict rules in place regarding emergency evacuation of stadiums and the lack of exit points from The Bridge and the limited space available are hurdles beyond our control unfortunately.

 

If the Club want to increase capacity and of course they do for obvious reasons, the only realistic option is to relocate. Where to though ? There is a severe lack of suitable sites in the area so any move would probably involve moving well away from our current site.

 

It's a real conumdrum. My heart says stay as we are, where we are, but my head says we may have to leave the area to get the stadium our Club, our owner and our fans deserve.

When Battersea was discussed there was talk of Chelsea FC contributing millions to the Northern line extension.

I assume that new stadium would of run into hundreds of millions.

I understand that the costs were partly covered by selling Stamford Bridge Grounds but surely the cost of redeveloping and spending money on emergency exits are viable?

The media has noted that it might cost as much as 600mp to enlarge Stamford Bridge. But the biggest obstacle as Fatty Speeding has noted is that Fulham council are not very friendly towards our organization. You can bet top dollar that Abramovich is going to be spending some top dollar on election campaigns in the months ahead to get a friendly seat or two there.

I understand that the costs were partly covered by selling Stamford Bridge Grounds but surely the cost of redeveloping and spending money on emergency exits are viable?

Unfortunately it's not that simple in the case of emergency exits relating to stadium evacuation. Under current regulations I believe stadiums have to be capable of being fully evacuated within 8 minutes.

 

It's where the spectators evacuate to that's the problem with Stamford Bridge. There are only two exits, and both are onto the Fulham Road. One alongside the West stand, and the other alongside the bottleneck of the East stand. I wouldn't fancy either in the unlikely event of an evacuation to be honest.

 

Stamford Bridge is unusual in as much it is surrounded on 2 sides by railway lines and the other 2 sides are hemmed in by buildings. Most of the grounds I have been to ( and that's a good many ) have exits and entrances on at least 3, and often all 4 sides.

 

It's an issue that Chelsea have been trying to resolve for years now. Ken Bates offered up numerous proposals back in the day but Hammersmith and Fulham Council turned them all down. I think they would be quite happy to see us bugger off elsewhere to be honest.

would our capacity be increased at all if safe-standing was introduced?

I would be very surprised if we find a location within three miles of Stamford Bridge in the next five and a half years.

I can see us moving further afield. The problems being hitting a green belt on the suburbs and walking into somebody else's 'manner' if we build up somewhere inside zone 4.

It's not a nice situation. The club need to be careful not to build too far away though. For the board, they won't be able to pull in as many tourists. For us, the stadium could be dead at 70% capacity some games. I would hate to have a Juventus situation pre their current stadium.

A right pickle, we need to make people some offers they can't refuse.

Could just bulldoze the cemetary next door 

Battersea would be amazing. It would become an iconic stadium all over europe I think. Hope the club works for that.

Battersea would be amazing. It would become an iconic stadium all over europe I think. Hope the club works for that.

 

Would love for it to happen but seems further away then ever

Could any of the land surrounding the bridge be purchased? There has to be some option. As mentioned above it would seem sensible for RA to focus on getting the city council in his pocket or at least not actively against us. There are so many building projects that are undertaken against the wishes of local residents I just can't understand how there is absolutely NO option to expand where we are located. Expand the stadium over the rail line with a tunnel going underneath the stand? sh*t there's got to be something lol

Here's a quick Photoshop I did, which shows just how boxed in we really are. 

 

Yellow area is all private property, (a nursing home etc?), highly unlikely to be able to acquire that bit of land. 

 

Green area - looks like a flash residential area - they are already minted and probably not gonna budge anytime soon.

 

Blue area, backing onto an old railway line and a residential area

 

Red area - I am clearly NOT qualified to say this..... but to me this looks like the only option for expansion, and it would mean getting rid of the Chelsea village, hotel etc and of course buying out the extra homes and businesses, which would be a big challenge. It would mean one hugely developed end, which would look pretty cool and would be rather steep. As to how many you could get in there, I dont know.

 

 

But even if the club went for this.... in 10 or 15 years time will we run into the same problems again?

Edited April 16, 201412 yr by Zola

double post

Edited April 16, 201412 yr by Zola

Yeah Zola I can't see us doing anything of note with the Bridge.

I know some would rather stay than move and of course we all want that ideally but at some point the small stadium is going to hold us back especially when the money stops being poured in by Roman.

We will be below these clubs (some already) in the near future and it will be an issue.

Arsenal

Spuds

Newcastle

Liverpool

City

United

West Ham

Where we are currently there is next to no chance of getting any land to build a new stadium and we lost the best option we had.

We are between a rock and a hard place, big brave decisions need to be made and no matter what some of us will be left unhappy.

The green bit you highlighted is Brompton presents like you said they have plenty of money so they won't be bought out. The red bit has listed buildings so making the exits bigger is not possible. The main problem is all fans have to exit onto the Fulham road. Remember when Bates was trying to get planning permission for a walkway towards earls court and for a train platform to be put at Stamford bridge. Sadly I can't see us expanding the bridge its just seems impossible.

Well sh*t

Could just bulldoze the cemetary next door 

Yes tarmac the whole lot

 

Can't we just build up, instead of out?